Redefining Excellence, One Handoff at a Time
Watching Tebow play quarterback is like watching a television psychic perform a cold reading. He flails about, trying this strategy and that, looking lost and a little silly. Then suddenly, someone shouts, “That voice from the spirit world you are hearing whose first name begins with a J is my great-uncle Jasper!” Everyone gasps in awe and cheers wildly as Jasper delivers his otherworldly message of vagueness, and any skeptic who dares to point out the absurdity of it all is branded a hateful killjoy.
But quarterbacks with the “winner” label always cause headaches for the rational people among us. Fans eager to embrace a new hero apply the post hoc fallacy: the team won, therefore the quarterback must have done something wonderful. They mix in a little confirmation bias: those three good plays are a sign of greatness, so we can ignore the 53 bad ones. Communal reinforcement — even the guys on the talk radio show agree! — serves as a chaser. There is nothing wrong with any of this because fandom is about hope and emotional connections to players and teams, not rational thought. But to cut through the rhetoric and analyze and evaluate these quarterbacks, you are better off consulting the noted skeptics James Randi and Michael Shermer than the gang at ESPN.
As opinions shift faster than sands through an hourglass, Mike Tanier isn't budging one bit.
I'm just pissed because he got to work in the words "communal reinforcement" before I did.
And I was planning to get real kinky, too.